One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

If you were so unfortunate to have followed this debate for twenty years, as I have been, you would recall a series of arguments made in the "early years" that the diary is so bad and so outlandish that it HAS to be real.

Indeed, RJ, the two girls who made the podcast you referred me to just the other day made exactly that claim.

As a hoax, it's an absolute disaster.

As an authentic document, it's an absolute disaster.

You pays your money ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

1) Ryan, The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, 1977
2) MacDougall, The Maybrick Case, 1891
3) Whittington-Egan, Tales of Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem & Mystery, 1985*
4) Wilson & Odell, Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict, 1987*
5) Harrison, Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved, 1991*
6) Fido, The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper, 1987 [For Punch photograph]

*Claimed by Mike Barrett himself

[caz]

As far as I can gather, only four reasons have been given for believing the diary is an old document.

1. William Graham claimed to have seen the diary in the 1940s.

2. Rod McNeil’s ion migration test determined that ink went on paper between 1909 and 1933, inclusive.

3. The chemist Alec Voller noticed the ink was ‘bronzed’ during a visual examination in October 1995, which suggested to him antiquity.

4. [by implication] a miniscule piece of metal, ‘darkened with age,' was found in a scratch on the back inside cover of the ‘Maybrick’ watch. I say by implication because this refers to the watch, of course, and not the diary.

Are there any others?

On that note, I think I will stumble down to the pub for a pint or two of embarrassment, and maybe a chaser of humiliation.

Alec Voller noticed a good deal more than that, RJ, as you well know. Naughty boy. Go to Orsam's corner and hang your head in shame.

One thing Voller noticed, and pointed out to those present - which I don't think you have ever attempted to explain away - was that some old non-synthetic glue, similar to Mike's 'linseed oil' staining, was on top of a dot of the diary ink, which made him think the writing was very old indeed.

Now it may be that Voller was wrong about what this substance was, and how old it was. After all, who is the preferred expert on this one? Voller or Mike Barrett? However, I doubt Voller was mistaken about where it was, which begs the question of how it got there after the writing, when honest Mike has told us that he spent a couple of days preparing and drying out the scrapbook before A.N [N.E] Other could get cracking with her pen and ink.

The linseed oil is not the only thing to give off a pen and ink where Mike's supposed expertise is concerned, but if anyone can't smell it they might want to think about getting a COVID test.

[rjpalmer]

One thing Voller noticed, and pointed out to those present - which I don't think you have ever attempted to explain away - was that some old non-synthetic glue, similar to Mike's 'linseed oil' staining, was on top of a dot of the diary ink, which made him think the writing was very old indeed.

Thanks, Caz.

I've been hearing this for twenty years, but--you know how us cynics are---I've seen no evidence of it--photographic or otherwise--nor did Alec Voller ever file a report. But the fact (?) that it was similar to Mike's linseed oil staining (Freudian slip?) might be an angle worth pursuing.

While we are on the topic of bronzing, part of Stephen Ryder's old archive has been destroyed, and what does remain can't be readily searched with the current engine, so perhaps you can be of assistance.

Do you still stand by your contention that Robert Smith had noticed the diary's bronzing from day one--or at least very early on-- but just didn't bother to tell anyone, or point it out to Baxendale & Eastaugh, etc? I always found this a curious claim. Do you have documentation for this bombshell?

I mean, some of these claims would seem to be so remarkable that one can't fancy why they weren't showcased more extensively in Harrison, et al.

[rjpalmer]

As a hoax, it's an absolute disaster.

As an authentic document, it's an absolute disaster.

True enough, but as a modern hoax it's been a corker!

[caz]

Wow, what was all that about Keith Skinner and Wills?

And what was all that about the dates not matching, et cetera?

All I asked was:



And you claimed that MacDougall is to be found at Liverpool library so - in fact - Barrett could have read Ryan, realised that MacDougall was worth a review, and therefore read through - what was it Caz said? - six hundred pages to ensure that the hoax he was about to write did not fall at the first hurdle. That's fine. It was clearly no 'shabby' hoax, at least.

Just for the record, then, that's:

1) Ryan, The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, 1977
2) MacDougall, The Maybrick Case, 1891
3) Whittington-Egan, Tales of Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem & Mystery, 1985*
4) Wilson & Odell, Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict, 1987*
5) Harrison, Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved, 1991*

* Claimed by Mike Barrett himself

Although he only needed three books to write the diary (according to Melvin Harris, Man of Integrity), it would be interesting to see how many actually get claimed for him. So far, I can think of the above five but I'm going to keep a separate record of them so - if you (dear readers) can think of any others which have been cited to explain how he fooled the world - do remind me and I'll add them to my list.

Ike
Thinking I May Need a Bigger Hard Drive at Some Point

Afternoon Ike,

Without reading MacDougall's six hundred pages, may I assume that he included Dr Fuller's trial testimony, which Mike would have needed to read through for himself, in order to put a verbatim quote in the diary? Ryan only paraphrases, so Mike would have needed to engage the combined services of Mystic Meg, Doris Stokes and Pamela Ball to divine any of Fuller's actual words without consulting an earlier source.

But due to the entirely foreseen circumstances of not getting a bean out of Barrett, the three weird sisters would have said "Nay, nay and thrice nay".

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

Wow, what was all that about Keith Skinner and Wills?

And what was all that about the dates not matching, et cetera?

Ok, thanks Ico. I should have simply said yes, it’s a fact. Because it was not at all likely that you would then have asked for clarification.
In the future, I’ll be sure to await the back and forth, instead of giving a thorough reply to your incredulous posts.

For the record, I haven’t seen anyone claiming that MB must have seen or consulted MacDougall. So you should strike it from your list.

[Yabs]

If McDougall was a source I wonder if the forger missed the paragraph.

“Thomas Maybrick lives in Manchester, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, had not visited his brother James for some years, and really had very little communication with him”


Bit of a risk including 3 or 4 visits to Thomas in the narrative throughout the span of the year or so that the diary covers if that paragraph was noted.
Thomas, unlike Michael and Edwin wasn’t called to give evidence to testify regarding his brothers health prior to his death which adds weight to Mcdougalls claim.

[Iconoclast]

For the record, I haven’t seen anyone claiming that MB must have seen or consulted MacDougall. So you should strike it from your list.

1) Ryan, The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, 1977
2) Fido, The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper, 1987 [For Punch photograph]
3) Whittington-Egan, Tales of Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem & Mystery, 1985*
4) Wilson & Odell, Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict, 1987*
5) Harrison, Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved, 1991*

*Claimed by Mike Barrett himself

Queried:

MacDougall, The Maybrick Case, 1891

[rjpalmer]

There was also the question of why no effort seemed to have been made to copy Maybrick's handwriting

I've never understood this, Paul. Why would this be suggestive of an old forgery, if that’s what you are implying?

Wouldn't it have been more likely that recreating convincing handwriting would have been a bigger issue for an 'old hoaxer'--ie., back when more examples of Maybrick's handwriting were available? And when people who knew Maybrick were still living?

If anything, the unconvincing handwriting suggests to me a modern forgery by a non-sophisticate. It wouldn't have flown in the 1890s or 1900s or even the 1920s. Yet, by the 1990s, people were willing to look past it, and some of this very thread still do.


Meanwhile, time has moved on. We now know things now that weren't available to you in the early 1990s. And some of them are quite damning to Barrett. If you want examples, I’m happy to supply them.

[Iconoclast]

If McDougall was a source I wonder if the forger missed the paragraph.

“Thomas Maybrick lives in Manchester, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, had not visited his brother James for some years, and really had very little communication with him”


Bit of a risk including 3 or 4 visits to Thomas in the narrative throughout the span of the year or so that the diary covers if that paragraph was noted.
Thomas, unlike Michael and Edwin wasn’t called to give evidence to testify regarding his brothers health prior to his death which adds weight to Mcdougalls claim.

Hi Yabs,

Are you sure that the diarist included 3 or 4 visits to Thomas?

I count only two - for the two Manchester murders the diarist claimed.

Ike

[Yabs]

Hi Yabs,

Are you sure that the diarist included 3 or 4 visits to Thomas?

I count only two - for the two Manchester murders the diarist claimed.

Ike

Hi Ike.

And the Christmas visit with the children

[rjpalmer]

*Claimed by Mike Barrett himself

What are you attempting to do, Ike?

You're confounding the books that Mike mentioned in his 'research notes' with what he may have used to create the document or alluded to privately.

If you want to merely list the books that Mike consulted for research, strike out Fido--he doesn't mention him anywhere.

You're making a muddle of it.

[caz]

Thanks, Caz.

I've been hearing this for twenty years, but--you know how us cynics are---I've seen no evidence of it--photographic or otherwise--nor did Alec Voller ever file a report. But the fact (?) that it was similar to Mike's linseed oil staining (Freudian slip?) might be an angle worth pursuing.

While we are on the topic of bronzing, part of Stephen Ryder's old archive has been destroyed, and what does remain can't be readily searched with the current engine, so perhaps you can be of assistance.

Do you still stand by your contention that Robert Smith had noticed the diary's bronzing from day one--or at least very early on-- but just didn't bother to tell anyone, or point it out to Baxendale & Eastaugh, etc? I always found this a curious claim. Do you have documentation for this bombshell?

I mean, some of these claims would seem to be so remarkable that one can't fancy why they weren't showcased more extensively in Harrison, et al.

Trevor's reading habits - or rather not reading habits - must be catching.

I'm not going to do your research for you, RJ, because I've quoted Voller often enough in the past from the transcript of the tape recording of the meeting where he made his observations. You can find out precisely what he said about the staining and dot of ink beneath it, leading him to conclude that it had been there "a very very long time" because it didn't have the feel of modern synthetic glue. It's on page 369 of Shirley's 1998 paperback if you've never read it before.

As for bronzing, 'we' were not on that topic; you were. But if you think I misrepresented Robert Smith in a public post, concerning his earliest observations about the ink, when he could have corrected me privately but didn't, that's your problem. Do your own dirty work and contact Robert yourself if you have any genuine interest in hearing it again from the horse's mouth.

But while we are on the topic of Robert Smith's observations, he did make it clear to me privately that he didn't understand what you were on about, concerning Mike's supposed 'con trick' in agreeing to hand over safe custody of the diary back in March 1993 [which, incidentally, was shortly after Mike learned that electrical work had been done in Battlecrease, and he was probably secretly shitting himself about the potential implications]. Robert's legal advice, which came from Harbottle & Lewis, the Queen's solicitors, was that Smith Gryphon should purchase rights in the diary for a nominal £1. As he said to me, evidently you think your grasp of copyright law is superior to that of Harbottle & Lewis. Robert's final opinion of you as an informed commentator is probably better imagined than repeated here.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike.

And the Christmas visit with the children

Hi Yabs,

The second murder in Manchester was the Christmas visit to Thomas.

Cheers,

Ike